United States v. David L. Bradford
905 F.3d 497
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Bradford was arrested after an ATF investigation into a suspicious gun purchase and subsequent controlled buys; he was convicted on six counts including drug-distribution conspiracy and related firearms offenses.
- After a March 6 warrant search and controlled buys by a cooperating informant (Smith), agents later obtained a June 9 warrant to search Bradford’s home; that search recovered rifles, a scale, and packaged marijuana.
- The June 9 warrant affidavit relied heavily on Smith’s firsthand statements about guns and drugs in Bradford’s home but omitted adverse credibility information about Smith (additional felony, probation status, and that he was paid).
- Bradford moved to suppress the June 9 search results based on the omissions; the district court denied suppression, finding corroboration and recent details sufficient for probable cause.
- Bradford also sought to exclude testimony about four violent incidents (retaliatory shootings, pistol‑whipping, plot to steal a supplier’s car, and a robbery/retaliation episode); the district court allowed the testimony and the jury heard it without contemporaneous, specific trial objections.
- On appeal Bradford argued (1) the warrant was invalid due to omitted informant credibility facts, (2) other‑acts violence evidence should have been excluded under Rules 404(b)/403, and (3) insufficient proof of a crack‑cocaine conspiracy; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bradford) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of June 9 search warrant | Warrant was invalid because agent omitted adverse informant credibility facts (additional felony, probation, paid status), depriving magistrate of material information | Affidavit still established probable cause: informant gave detailed, firsthand, and recently corroborated information (controlled buys, matching Draco tag, Cadillac ownership) | Warrant facially valid; omissions not fatal because detail, corroboration, and recency supported probable cause |
| Admission of violent other‑acts evidence (404(b)) | Evidence was impermissible character/propensity evidence and prejudicial; should be excluded | Evidence was direct evidence of conspiracy and firearms counts (showed provision/use of weapons to protect/advance drug enterprise) | No reversible error: evidence was admissible as direct evidence of conspiracy and firearms offenses; plain‑error review failed |
| Exclusion under Rule 403 (unfair prejudice) | Probative value was low (Bradford did not dispute possession) and prejudicial effect outweighed probative value | Incidents were probative of conspiracy membership, protection of territory, and use/transfer of firearms; defendant never offered stipulations | No plain error: trial judge reasonably admitted evidence; balancing did not show unfair prejudice requiring reversal |
| Sufficiency of evidence for crack‑cocaine conspiracy | Government proved only two isolated buys, insufficient for ongoing conspiracy | Controlled buys plus cooperating witnesses and other corroboration showed ongoing conspiracy; alternatively marijuana conspiracy proved | Sufficient evidence of conspiracy overall (at least for marijuana); conspiracy conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Orozco, 576 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2009) (probable‑cause inquiry and Gates framework)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for informant‑based warrants)
- United States v. Glover, 755 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014) (omission of informant credibility facts can be fatal when corroboration and detail are weak)
- United States v. Musgraves, 831 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 2016) (omitted credibility info can be salvaged by strong showing on primary factors)
- United States v. Pulgar, 789 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2015) (conspiracy requires evidence of shared stake and provision of tools advancing distribution)
- United States v. Eller, 670 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2012) (definition of "in furtherance" for firearms used in drug trafficking)
- United States v. Swan, 486 F.3d 260 (7th Cir. 2007) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved evidentiary objections)
- United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (Rule 403 balancing and effect of defendant stipulations)